Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members

2014-06-23 Thread Allan Doyle
+1 for dues. I would sign up.

On Jun 23, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Howard Butler how...@hobu.co wrote:

 
 On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Bart van den Eijnden bart...@osgis.nl wrote:
 
 Good food for thought Howard, can’t say I disagree with anything you say 
 here.
 
 The only thing we need to consider is that for some countries 50 or 70 USD 
 can still be a lot of money
 
 Yes. Something equitable could be arrived at. Let the membership committee 
 come up with the membership dues rules. I would assume there's student 
 memberships, grants, etc. 

GSDI bases membership dues on the gross national per capita income. They do 
this for organizations, but there's no reason not to do it for individuals. 
They use the World Bank data for this. See http://www.gsdi.org/fullmemshp for 
details.

Allan


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Proposed process for selecting OSGeo charter members

2014-06-23 Thread Allan Doyle

On Jun 23, 2014, at 12:40 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote:

 
 
 On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:08 PM, Howard Butler how...@hobu.co wrote:
 
 Do you lose a significant benefit by not being a Charter Member? Just the 
 ability to vote for the board and the ability to tout your exclusivity on a 
 vita/resume. Anything else? Lack of membership does not prevent anyone from 
 participating now, and we wouldn't want it to (unlike many other 
 professional organizations).
 
 I don't lose anything significant, which implies that everything significant 
 I gain from OSGeo's community is unaffected by my membership. This is one of 
 the reasons I don't attend foss4g anymore (actually, mainly because I can't 
 afford to do so). I will still support all the community ideals and 
 aspirations to the fullest possible.
 
 In short, I consider this both my vote for membership dues and the concurrent 
 renunciation of my membership as a result.

A membership is two-sided. You might not have a different experience as a 
non-member, but the organization may suffer. So unless you're upset at the turn 
of the discussion, it may be premature to renunciate your membership.

Allan

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The OSGeo response to the proposed GeoServices REST API document [was: Would you be concerned ...]

2013-05-09 Thread Allan Doyle
Thanks Adrian for your email with your reasoned explanation. It's not often 
people take the time to provide such a thorough analysis.

On May 9, 2013, at 1:56 PM, Adrian Custer acus...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On 5/9/13 2:33 PM, Tim Bowden wrote:
 On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 13:20 -0300, Adrian Custer wrote:
 Hey Cameron, all,
 
 ...
* The letter is only rejection of the proposal without offering an
  alternative way forwards.
 
 I strongly suspect the proposed standard would have received a much
 better reception from the broader OSGeo community (with the diverse
 viewpoints it typically has) if the proposal was more that a take it or
 leave it (partial?) description of what ESRI has done and is going to
 do anyway.
 
 Undoubtedly. This was as undiplomatic as they could have been.
 
 If there was at least some willingness to engage with the
 broader community on interoperability within the standard (and how do
 you have interoperability if you aren't willing to budge from a
 pre-defined position anyway?).
 
 And there would have been more participation at the OGC. Lots of folk were 
 excited at the start but gave up when backwards compatibility was set in 
 stone.
 
 
 Perhaps ESRI didn't realise their approach was going to come across with
 an up you attitude (or maybe they did)?  The impression I've got it
 that many people feel ESRI is treating the OGC as a rubber stamp body
 (which very much implies arrogant contempt) regardless of the merits of
 the proposal.
 
 Much more likely, ESRI is trying to push through its standard, distinct 
 from expecting the OGC to 'rubber stamp' it.
 
 They knew from the get go they were going to face this opposition. The only 
 question is who is stronger.
 
 This is a good example of the limits of governance at the OGC. Really, a 
 standard should not pass when there is concerted opposition to it. The 
 process is designed to suspend when there is opposition (2 no votes), in an 
 effort to build consensus. However, the ultimate decision is still a 50% + 1 
 vote; probably, it should be a super-majority of some kind.
 

Having attended most of the first 50-ish OGC meetings and then a few here and 
there since, here's my perspective on the limits of governance. The problem 
is not so much the process (or wasn't, back in the day, it's become much more 
byzantine since then). The main problem is that most TC members either have no 
programming/architecture background or their expertise is fairly specialized. 
That means that for any given proposal, a small percentage of the members 
really understand it. Then, when it comes to a TC vote you have people voting 
based not strictly on technical grounds but also on business interests, 
political interests, even social interests. On top of that, I don't think that 
member companies are very knowledgeable about the policies and procedures and 
don't really know how to use their memberships to their best advantage. Taken 
together, this can lead to some fairly dysfunctional results.

I believe that the Architecture Board (or whatever it's called now) was 
established in part to counter this effect. You'd have a bunch of knowledgable 
old hands benevolently watching over the output of the process who were going 
to make sure things hang together from a technical point of view. Perhaps the 
Architecture Board has been unable to provide sufficient guidance to the TC in 
this particular instance.

 
 Hopefully I've got it wrong and ESRI really just botched
 their approach on this one (why do I feel this is naive wishful
 thinking?).
 
 FWIW, I don't believe having an alternate incompatible standard must of
 itself be a deal breaker, if the proposed standard genuinely represents
 a viable attempt at interoperability.  After all, the wonderful thing
 about standards is there are so many to choose from.  ;)  Lets just not
 pretend it's about genuine interoperability unless that really is the
 case.
 
 I doubt anyone is that naive.

In the end, everyone wins if specs are vendor neutral but also allow vendors to 
differentiate themselves by providing different qualities in their 
implementations. If a spec is passed that is simply a thin veneer on top of an 
existing vendor's implementation, then that vendor has a head start over 
others. If the OGC members are collectively unwilling or unable to push back 
against this, then this kind of thing is the result. It's really a Darwinian 
microcosm within a mutually agreed upon set of rules. If the results are 
irrelevant, confusing, or outrageous, then over time the organization will 
suffer and become less relevant.

Allan
 
 
 Regards,
 Tim Bowden
 
 cheers,
  ~adrian
 
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: postgis vs osx sleep

2010-05-09 Thread Allan Doyle
I think this non-sleep is just a Mac issue. I and others I know have 
experienced it without having PostGIS or any other geo software installed.

It's pretty rare. I think it's happened to me twice in the last 2-3 years.

The results from this search don't implicate PostgreSQL:

http://www.google.com/search?client=safarirls=enq=macbook+doesn't+sleep+when+closedie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8

Allan

On May 9, 2010, at 11:49 AM, P Kishor wrote:

 On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:35 AM, William Kyngesburye
 wokl...@kyngchaos.com wrote:
 I've had Postgres on my MacBook for years, across 3 system versions, and I 
 haven't had problems with mysterious waking.  ..
 
 
 I have been running Pg (since v 8.3.x to the latest) on my Macbook,
 always compiled from source code. No insomnia problems here  as well.
 
 
 On May 9, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
 
 I was unable to get the indicated installer working; will report back if I 
 learn anything :-(
 
 On 09/05/2010, at 5:01 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
 
 I just tried cooking my laptop after working with postgis for a bit. After 
 throwing it into a laptop bag I was surprised to find the bag chirp at me; 
 after 30mins. Turns out postgres was keeping it running; and running in a 
 confined space is not the best idea.
 
 After a bit of a cool down I found the following:
 - 
 http://cutedgesystems.com/weblog/index.php?entry=/Technology/PostgreSQLInstaller.txt
 
 Jody
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Puneet Kishor
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership

2009-12-14 Thread Allan Doyle

On Dec 13, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:

[...]

 My private opinion on this issue is pretty clear: Move your Copyright to  
 OSGeo - all of it including trademarks, logos and designs. That is what  
 OSGeo is there for. Get it out of corporate reach, it is none of their  
 business (great analogy, hehe). 
 
 Is their any advantage of keeping the  Copyright under a private property?
 
 Depends. There may be more trust in some private properties than others. 
 So far as I'm aware, OGC is a private property, you you argue that putting
 KML under OGC was a good thing.
 
 OSGeo is also a private property. It is a foundation, managed by an elected
 board -- but so are most companies. (OSgeo isn't even, so far as I know,
 a registered nonprofit organization at this time.) What makes OSGeo a better
 steward for code than organizations which have managed code for years --
 or in the cases of some projects, decades?
 
 What I get back from corporate users of Open Source software these days  
 is the same, they would rather have the Copyright sit with a (real)  
 non-profit like OSGeo than anything else.
 
 How is OSGeo a real non-profit?  
 
 I don't see a strong reason to change the methods of projects that have
 successfully managed many years of code contributions. The best people
 to make those decisions are people who have successfully managed those
 projects.
 
 It's great that OSGeo now feels comfortable managing the copyright of 
 projects, but it's not clear to me what that actually means. Who is the
 person who controls the copyright? Who makes decisions about how it is
 managed -- and what happens if someone disagrees with those decisions?
 
 I think that it would be lovely to create an environment where projects
 feel that giving copyright over to OSGeo makes their lives -- as project
 managers -- easier. I'm not convinced that is currently the case; the lack
 of obvious documentation on how projects should give copyright to OSGeo,
 and what it means when it happens, seems to me like it creates a void in
 which projects might feel uncomfortable about giving copyright to OSGeo,
 for fear of what that might mean. Improving that, through solid documentation,
 seems a great first step in making projects feel more comfortable with
 that process; this is certainly true for me as a contributor to OpenLayers.
 

I am not a lawyer. But here's some info I believe is largely correct.

Regarding keeping the copyright in a non-profit -- in the US, a 501(c)(3) has 
no owners, there is no stock, and as such, all the assets of the corporation 
are retained within the corporation under the control of the Board of 
Directors. The Board of Directors can either (a) disposes of the assets or (b) 
dissolve the Corporation.

Disposing of the assets must be done in a way that doesn't benefit individual 
directors, their families, or close associates. (OSGeo has this spelled out in 
its Certificate of Incorporation in Article X [1])

Dissolving the Corporation must be done as spelled out in either the Bylaws or 
the Articles of Incorporation (in something known as a dissolution clause) 
and essentially involves turning the assets over to another 501(c)(3). (OSGeo 
has such a clause in Article IX [1])

Disposing of assets could take the form of a sale to a private party, with the 
proceeds going to the Corporation. But I would think that the Board of 
Directors would have to document how that advances the non-profit purpose of 
the Corporation.

Now back to opinion.

In any case, I suspect that there's plenty of room for a Board of Directors to 
do the wrong thing with any asset (copyrights, property, cash, etc), either 
intentionally or unintentionally without getting in trouble, simply because no 
one notices.

If someone disagrees with a decision taken by the Board, I don't think there is 
any recourse as long as the Board didn't do anything illegal. If someone thinks 
the Board is about to do something he or she disagrees with, that person would 
have to try to influence that action by following the rules in the Bylaws [2] 
to either change the composition of the Board, remove one or more Board 
members, or get enough support to make the Board think either of those things 
might happen and thus decide not to do something that would cause the 
individual to take action. (Assuming, of course that simply appealing to the 
Board to not take the action didn't work).

This is the stuff of boardroom dramas that you read about in the news... with 
any luck at all, OSGeo noodles along as one big happy family. But it's good to 
know what the legal parameters are.

Allan

[1] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/osgeo_certificate.pdf
[2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership

2009-12-14 Thread Allan Doyle
Oops. One more bit about this.

On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Allan Doyle wrote:

 
 On Dec 13, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
 
 [...]
 
 My private opinion on this issue is pretty clear: Move your Copyright to  
 OSGeo - all of it including trademarks, logos and designs. That is what  
 OSGeo is there for. Get it out of corporate reach, it is none of their  
 business (great analogy, hehe). 
 
 Is their any advantage of keeping the  Copyright under a private property?
 
 Depends. There may be more trust in some private properties than others. 
 So far as I'm aware, OGC is a private property, you you argue that putting
 KML under OGC was a good thing.
 
 OSGeo is also a private property. It is a foundation, managed by an elected
 board -- but so are most companies. (OSgeo isn't even, so far as I know,
 a registered nonprofit organization at this time.) What makes OSGeo a better
 steward for code than organizations which have managed code for years --
 or in the cases of some projects, decades?

Once again - I'm not a lawyer...

OSGeo is a non-profit by virtue of the way it was incorporated. The IRS ruling 
that's in progress is not to decide whether or not it's a non-profit. It's to 
decide whether it's a public charity or a foundation, each being specific 
legal terms that affect the rules under which it operates. If the organization 
fails to secure an IRS ruling after a certain amount of time, I think it 
defaults to foundation unless its annual income is under $25,000.

But both forms are 501(c)(3), and in any case, it is bound to operate under the 
provisions of the certificate of incorporation and the bylaws.

Allan

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OGC geospatial rights mgt. summit

2009-06-01 Thread Allan Doyle


On Jun 1, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Landon Blake wrote:


Doesn't the USGS already release a ton of data in the public domain?

I also thought an organization interested in standards for geospatial
data might be interested in geospatial data licensing. They seem like
parallel tracks.


OSGeo, OGC, GSDI, and probably other organizations all present  
different views into dealing with data. Aligning with any of these has  
its pluses and minuses. I think it boils down to where the inertia is.  
If there seems to be a current lack of intensity, then one  
interpretation is that there hasn't been enough critical mass in any  
one place to achieve the intensity. Depending on the organization,  
some of the energy put into moving the topic forward may have to be  
used to counter other interests within that organization. Thus, one  
approach is to assess where to best apply positive energy without  
having to counter lots of resistance. Maybe that place is within  
Science Commons itself.


Allan



Landon
Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268
Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658


-Original Message-
From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Ian Turton
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:53 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Cc: punk...@eidesis.org
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OGC geospatial rights mgt. summit

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Landon Blake lbl...@ksninc.com  
wrote:

How about OGC support for the Science Commons work on a public

domain

or creative commons type license for geospatial data.



That's not going to happen. OGC has many national mapping agencies as
members and USGS and OS are never going to allow this. Plus it isn't
any of the OGC's business as to what sort of licenses are used on
data.

Ian
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Warning:
Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against  
defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader  
is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any  
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error,  
please notify the sender immediately.

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum | http://web.mit.edu/museum | +1.617.452.2111



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] End of life for Community Mapbuilder

2008-07-28 Thread Allan Doyle
 Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Commercial Support for Geospatial Open Source Solutions
http://www.lisasoft.com/LISAsoft/SupportedProducts.html
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum | http://web.mit.edu/museum | +1.617.452.2111



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Fundraising

2008-06-16 Thread Allan Doyle
Regarding the income side of the budget, I recommend looking at IRS  
form 8734 [1], which will have to be filled out at the end of the 5th  
year of being a 501(c)(3) organization. OSGeo will have to pass the  
public support test of getting at least 33% of its support from  
public sources. That 33%, if I recall correctly must be made up of  
donations of $5000 or less. That means $35,000 in chunks smaller than  
5K for the budget shown.


I think this is why Creative Commons had that huge donation push a  
couple of years ago, when they realized they were about to bump into  
that.


It can be far harder to get a lot of little donations than a few big  
ones. If OSGeo fails the test, it can cause some major tax and  
reporting headaches.


Better to think about it now and build it into the fundraising.

Allan

[1] http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8734.pdf
and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8734.pdf

On Jun 16, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:


Landon Blake wrote:

Another thing I've been curious about is how any funds raised will be
spent or dispersed. I know we need to pay Tyler's salary. What other
things do we need to pay for? Do we help fund the FOSS4G  
conference? Do

we fund work/infrastructure for specific projects?
I'd like to learn more about this. I think a web page geared towards
potential contributors with a concise explanation of how duns are  
spent

would be an aid to fundraising efforts, if we will ever have any.


Landon,

The 2008 budget might help you see what we plan to spend money on.

 http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OSGeo_Budget_2008

Hopefully the 2007 annual report will be finished soon, and it
will include a financial report on spending during 2007.

Best regards,
--
--- 
+--

I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush| President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111





___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GeoJSON 1.0 Release Announcement

2008-06-16 Thread Allan Doyle

http://wiki.geojson.org/Users

On Jun 16, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Guillaume Sueur wrote:


Hi Chris,

Would you have a list of the 20 applications ?

thanks !

Guillaume

Christopher Schmidt a écrit :

The GeoJSON Authors are proud to announce the finalization of the
GeoJSON 1.0 Specification.
Representing more than a year's worth of community discussion and
development, the GeoJSON specification describes an easy to use,
extensible format for transferring geographic data over the web. With
support in more than 20 different applications, GeoJSON is already
quickly becoming a de facto standard for transferring geographic  
data in
a JSON format. The finalization of the spec represents the final  
step in

formalizing the GeoJSON format for encoding this data.
More information on GeoJSON can be found at http://geojson.org/ , or
from the GeoJSON mailing list at
http://lists.geojson.org/listinfo.cgi/geojson-geojson.org .
Regards,


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111





___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Voting for new OSGeo Charter Members open until6th June 2008

2008-05-30 Thread Allan Doyle

Same here. I can't see leaving three out in the cold.

By the way, I think it may be time for me to retire from Charter  
Member status since my geo-being has changed to the point where I'm  
pretty far removed from the OSGeo mainstream (no, I'm not using  
proprietary software!).


Allan

On May 30, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Steve Lime wrote:

Looking at the list I was thinking the exact same thing and would  
support a blanket invitation

as well...

Steve


On 5/30/2008 at 3:16 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], P  
Kishor

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:41 PM,  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

dear all,

The list of nominations for new OSGeo Charter Members is here:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2008

From today until the end of Friday 6th June 2008, votes for
15 new Charter Members are being accepted at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


This is a great list. Each one of those listed would be (well,  
already

is) a great asset to the OSGeo cause and community. There are only 18
on that list, so that means 3 will be left out. My vote? Charter-ify
all 18 of them.





* Only Charter Members are eligible to vote!
* Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a list of names 15 lines
 long (one vote per new member slot)
* Votes can be for 15 different people, or the same person
 15 times, or any balance in between.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Election_2008 has more links.

Charter Members are responsible for electing the Board of the
OSGeo Foundation. The initial group of Charter Members was the 25
people in the Free and Open Source Geospatial community who attended
the startup meeting of the Foundation in Chicago on 4th Feb. 2006

This group later selected another 20 Charter Members and they in  
turn
elected the first complete Board in the summer of 2006. In 2007  
another

15 Charter Members were elected to the Foundation (one stood down).
The current list is at http://www.osgeo.org/charter_members

http://www.osgeo.org/membership explains why the Charter Membership
exists, basically as an attempt to guarantee the ongoing integrity
of the Board as representative of the community at large.
This is seen as more stable, and less liable to hijack, than
granting a vote in exchange for payment (like the OpenStreetmap  
Foundation)
or in exchange for measurable contribution (like Wikimedia's  
Foundation)


This year's nominations again, for those who read this far:

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/New_Member_Nominations_2008


jo
--






___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111





___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] AAG Boston Social Next Week

2008-04-10 Thread Allan Doyle
There was a proposal to host an event at the MIT Museum, but that  
never got anywhere.


There is an interesting meeting that's happening on the 14th - 
http://liftlab.com/think/fabien

There is a pub at MIT, the Muddy Charles - http://web.mit.edu/muddy/hours.html 
 but to show up in large numbers requires getting there before 5 or  
so. If people go to the talk, that means heading to the Muddy right  
afterwards.


(I'm not sure I can make it to the Adam Greenfield talk yet, I'm  
trying to rearrange my schedule.)


Allan

On Apr 10, 2008, at 8:07 AM, Lucena, Ivan wrote:

Alex,

I am nearby, Central-Mass. I wasn't planning to go to AAG but if  
there is some OSGeo stuff event that I can attend I might change my  
plans.


Regards,

Ivan


Alex Mandel wrote:
So any progress planning an OSGeo social next week for the AAG in  
Boston. I know we've got at least 10 people to bring together (at  
least 5 from UC Davis). Even just picking a hang out for one night  
would be cool, although you had mentioned MIT before...

What do the locals say?
Alex
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111





___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] NASA meeting end of April

2008-01-18 Thread Allan Doyle
Another good place to introduce OSGeo to NASA is the ESIP Federation,  
where I think a number of OSGeo folks are already active. Their next  
meeting is in July in New Hampshire. http://esipfed.org/events (ignore  
the date typo, the 2007 there should be 2008...)


Allan


On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Ned Horning wrote:


Greetings -

I'll give the “standard process” for announcing possible OSGeo  
events suggested by Arnulf a try. If there is interest I'll create a  
Proposed Event Wiki page.


NASA is holding their bi-annual Carbon Cycle and Ecosystem Joint  
Science Workshop April 28-May 2 in College Park Maryland: http://cce.nasa.gov/meeting_2008/


This event would be an excellent opportunity to introduce OSGeo to  
NASA and it's funded researchers. It will be well attended and I  
think this NASA community is ripe for learning more about OSGeo.  
This is potentially an important community since NASA is funding  
researchers that develop software but it's often not developed  
within open source communities even though there is an increase in  
the use of open source software. My gut feeling is that the reason  
for this is that many folks are not familiar with what open source  
is all about and they are not aware of the great resources out there.


If folks are interested in pursuing this I will do what I can to  
facilitate OSGeo involvement. I'm not certain if I will be able to  
attend and even if I do it would be good to have someone involved  
who is more adept at advocating for OSGeo than me.


All the best,

Ned
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Technology Group, Inc. announces PostGIS UMN MapServer Training

2008-01-18 Thread Allan Doyle
+1 on no advertising or announcements on this list. I agree that  
it may sound churlish to stop good organizations from sending good  
information to good people; I also agree that allowing it would  
diminish the usefulness of this list. If the web page of offerings is  
not enough, then maybe set up a separate list for that kind of thing.


+1 on Arnulf's analysis of freely provided course materials. MIT  
started the Open Course Ware (OCW) movement a few years ago[1] and it  
certainly has not cut back on MIT's ability to attract customers,  
i.e. students. In fact, it has spawned a mini-industry of other  
universities putting their materials online[2].


Allan

[1] http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
[2] 
http://www.ocwconsortium.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=12Itemid=26


On Jan 18, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:


Howard Butler wrote:

On Jan 17, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
If you were to lead the development of this material and put it  
into the Open Source (with your name attached) this would give you  
extra credibility and marketing reach.
Why?  Why must OTG put their hard earned training materials in the  
public domain and give them away for free for extra credibility?   
What would then be the incentive for someone to pay $$$ to go to an  
intensive training session?


Entrepreneurs, we have thoroughly analyzed this aspect over the past  
years and come to the conclusion that publishing course material  
openly is not detrimental to earning money. Quite the contrary it  
even helps us making more business. The added value is generated at  
several levels including both hard cash and marketing (find out  
details below). As active FOSSGIS software contributors we are happy  
to foster and promote the projects that we are involved with. In  
some cases (for example MapServer and PostGIS) this is the only way  
that we can give back our 2Ct contribution.
To better understand the involved factors we have studied uses cases  
in detail. First we have grouped our clients into three distinct  
categories who *use* our course material, these are: * Experts

* Students
* Professionals

Then we have identified three distinct groups who *profit* from  
having course material released under an open and free license.  
These are: * Clients (~users, as categorized  above) * Creators (for  
example the WhereGroup or Chandler OTG who produce Intellectual  
Property) * the FOSSGIS project and communities that are in the  
focus of the training material (here MapServer and PostGIS).


A multidimensional matrix would probably make this transparent but  
unfortunately I am too dumb to create it and will need to use words  
to explain the dependencies.
1. Real Experts (hackers, nerds, freaks). They would never pay for  
our courses because they are too damn smart. They wont offer courses  
themselves (which would be detrimental to our business) because it  
would bore them to death. But they still profit from having access  
to material because it will speed up understanding the corresponding  
FOSSGIS project. This will make them choose this project one over  
another one because good developers are also lazy. This is good for  
the FOSSGIS project and community because those people listen to  
what those real experts have to say, recommend, etc. Hard to measure  
- but unquestionably there.
2. Students. They will not be able to pay our rates anyway, so we do  
not loose anything if we give them the material for free. Quite the  
contrary, when those students leave school and come into a position  
where they have to decide where to go - who you'r gonna ask -  
Ghostbusters. This is a long term strategy that only market leaders  
can follow. Corporations Besides that students can potentially also  
enhance the course material, keep it up to date, etc. But only if it  
is available under a FOSS license, etc. This currently does not  
happen because universities and educational personnel are still in  
the late sixties wrt their knowledge about Open Source but so what.  
We have to be patient. Eventually the old farts who don't get it  
will be replaced by those that we have helped educate with our  
freely available course material and Bingo! If you lock your  
training material away and treat it as Intellectual Property you  
will be the only idiot who invests keeping it up to date. Why not  
exploit those who are prepared to give (FOSS4G 08, Keynote by Damian  
Conway)?


3. Professionals: Those are the ones that pay us money. They have a  
problem on their hand, a budget to solve it and limited time. These  
are the ones we love, we live off them. They would never bother to  
try and learn by themselves with freely available material because  
they have the resources to do it professionally and get somebody to  
explain it to them. They don't have the time to learn it by  
themselves. If they don't have the budget, they are not interesting  
to us 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Proposal: Statement of OSGeo Legal Support

2007-10-30 Thread Allan Doyle


On Oct 30, 2007, at 15:09 , Michael P. Gerlek wrote:


Way back on that cold day in Chicago, I'm not sure anyone ever really
thought about what it would mean when we said we'd offer legal
protection.

Does it imply/lead-to/entail some sort of indemnification?  Ouch, that
would be pricey...  How does the Apache gang, et al, handle this?


My recollection is that the Apache gang carefully keeps their coffers  
empty and makes sure the code all legally belongs to the Apache  
Foundation. Thus there's not enough of a pot of gold to win in a suit.


However, I'm guessing that this strategy depends on a pretty well- 
defined process to ensure there are no loopholes.


Allan




-mpg




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Landon Blake
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:56 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Proposal: Statement of
OSGeo Legal Support

Cameron,

I think this is an excellent idea, and a lawyer should definitely be
consulted. I wonder if the legal staff at the Software Freedom
Conservancy could assist.

Landon

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cameron Shorter
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:56 AM
To: OSGeo-Board
Cc: OSGeo Discussions; Adrian Custer
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Proposal: Statement of OSGeo Legal
Support

OSGeo Board, (CC to OSGeo Discuss),

During the founding of OSGeo, it was often noted that OSGeo projects
would benefit from OSGeo legal protection. Now, as Geotools wrestles
with graduation criteria and how to handle license assignment, the
nature and level of legal protection offered by OSGeo is
unclear. Also
unclear is the level of legal review available (as tested by Geotools
crafting of a Copywrite Assignment document).
Consequently, geotools is having difficulty deciding whether
it is wise
to assign copywrite to OSGeo.

I suspect a large part of the problem is that board members (like
myself) are not lawyers and don't have a clear understanding of the
options, the value of each of the options to OSGeo and the
projects (how
much protection is given), and the cost both in time and financially.
Key questions to answer for each option are:
* What level of support is given to contributors and license  
reviewers

(individuals and companies)
* What level of support is given to OSGeo users?
* What level of support is given to projects? Will OSGeo
fight a license
infringer on behalf of a project?
* What level of support is given to the OSGeo Foundation?

*Proposal*
That the board makes a clear statement on their website about
nature and
level of support offered by OSGeo to OSGeo projects and Individuals.
This statement needs to be backed up with a budget item addressing
financial implications related to the statement.

Implementation:
I suggest the steps to achieve the above would be:
1. Board approves budget to have a lawyer, or volunteer with legal
review, to draw up a list of options and their financial
implications.
Adrian Custer's review provides an excellent basis for a
lawyer to start

from. http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Geotools+Legal+Review
2. Board votes to select best option.
3. OSGeo financial sponsors are given opportunity to contribute to
decision.
4. OSGeo budgets for decision
5. OSGeo records the legal stance publicly (on a webpage).

--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Systems Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Commercial Support for Geospatial Open Source Software
http://www.lisasoft.com/LISAsoft/SupportedProducts.html

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Warning:
Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed
against defects including translation and transmission
errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this information in error, please notify the
sender immediately.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting

2007-10-17 Thread Allan Doyle
Chris Schmidt is starting up OSGeo Boston, and this would be a great  
project for us to do. We're having our first meeting tonight, we can  
put it on the agenda!


Allan

On Oct 17, 2007, at 13:30 , Alex Mandel wrote:

I think this is a great opportunity for OSGeo to reach a wider  
audience of general users.


As and organization I think we should consider having a 'vendor'  
booth in the exhibit hall, running a workshop, and maybe an  
organized session.

I'll volunteer to help with whatever we pick to do.

The meeting is April 15-19 2008 in Boston, but paper submission are  
due by the end of this month. Note, they make you pay for the  
conference before you submit because you are guaranteed to talk(as  
far as I can tell).


Alex

--
Call for Papers
2008 Annual Meeting of the AAG

The AAG Annual Meeting accepts all submitted abstracts for  
presentation.  If you have any questions about these guidelines  
please direct them to Oscar Larson at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Abstracts must be submitted online at www.aag.org/annualmeeting  
between August 1, 2007, and October 31, 2007.


* Presentations
* Abstracts
* Organized Sessions
* Program Committee Organized Sessions
* Requirements for Participation
* Enrichment Funds
* Workshops  Field Trips
* Disclaimer

---
http://www.aag.org/annualmeetings/2008/papers.htm
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Aust-NZ] Geospatial Events Calendar?

2007-10-15 Thread Allan Doyle

There's another at http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index_Calendar.html

I thought setting up a calendar would be a good idea at one point,  
too. Then I saw how many are out there already, and the enormity of  
the task sunk in. Not only are there a lot of calendars out there,  
but many events are already on many of the calendars. But they are on  
there with metadata that was interpreted by the calendar keeper from  
the source material about the conference.


It's ironic that this is essentially the same kind of thing that  
plagues the geo data world. Lots of datasets get shipped around,  
slowly losing their ties to the source data set as people use and  
reuse the data.


The ideal solution is the same. Standardized metadata attached to the  
source material in a crawlable way. Make sure the catalogs (in this  
case, calendars) retain pointers to the source material.


Allan

On Oct 14, 2007, at 23:43 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Cameron,

The GSDI people maintain a list of conferences at:

http://www.gsdi.org/events/upcnf.asp


This may help.

Bruce




Cameron Shorter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
15/10/2007 01:16 PM

To
OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org
cc
Aust-NZ OSGeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
[Aust-NZ] Geospatial Events Calendar?





Has anyone set up (and maintaining) a Geospatial Events Calendar?
Ideally one that I can import into my Google Calendar.
It would be useful for picking future OSGeo conference dates that  
don't

clash.

--
Cameron Shorter
Systems Architect, http://lisasoft.com.au
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

___
Aust-NZ mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/aust-nz

Notice:
This email and any attachments may contain information that is  
personal, confidential,
legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be  
reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written  
consent of the copyright owner.


It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove  
viruses.


If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender  
by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies.  
You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the  
information contained in this email.


Please consider the environment before printing this email.




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111




___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGEO OGC spec development

2007-07-26 Thread Allan Doyle
 with OGC and see some of that reflected in future
OGC specs.


There was also discussion about a new Tiled WMS

specification. Such spec can have different forms, and could
be conceived as a new spec or as an extension (or application
profile) of a Web Map Service. Two approaches were presented
and two other approaches were mentioned, among which the
approach taken within the OSGEO community.


Observing these discussions, my impression is that

OSGEO has an important role to play in the further
development of these OGC specs. We can obviously take the
easy route and let OGC go its way. We could than come up with
in-house, open specifications that will compete with OGC
specs still under development. The development of the specs
is likely to be quicker than going through OGC. However, I
feel that with limited effort by the community we can have a
very positive influence on the OGC spec development. We can
make sure experiences in OSGEO are reflected in the OGC
specs. The WMS-T is an obvious example of this. It was kind
of frustrating to not see that experience properly
represented at the WMS-WG.


OSGEO is very young still, so frustration is not an

expression of dissatisfaction in this case :-) rather, I
think it might be time to establish a way to formally
represent OSGEO in OGC. This could be through those OSGEO
members that already hold a TC level membership to OGC (the
logical first step I would think) and later possibly through
a direct OSGEO TC Membership to OGC. Also, we could consider
a focal point in OSGEO where specification development is
discussed and coordinated. This may have the form of a
Committee for instance. I'm hesitant to propose new
Committees, but if there's enough interest to have a central
coordination point dealing with standards and specs, it may
make sense :-)


Greetings from Rome,
Jeroen

___
Jeroen Ticheler
FAO-UN
Tel: +39 06 57056041
http://www.fao.org/geonetwork
42.07420°N 12.34343°E



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


[OSGeo-Discuss] GEO task on Open Source

2007-05-24 Thread Allan Doyle
Looking at http://www.earthobservations.org/docs/WP0709.v4.pdf - page  
29, I see that Brazil has been assigned this task:


=
CB-07-01e: Open Source Software

This Task is led by Brazil.

Encourage use of open source solutions across/along the Earth  
observation value chain through the development of an inventory of  
OSS solutions that could be used within GEO. Make this inventory and  
identified open source solutions available through the GEO Web portal.


Encourage the development of open source solutions across/along the  
Earth observation value chain by building on existing efforts and  
drawing on networks of OSS developers. As a starting point, use the  
TerraView and Terralib platform to encourage the development of open  
source software for end users dealing with integrated Earth  
observation and GIS data.

=

Do we know who's doing this and is the Brazil GEO team aware of OSGeo?

See http://www.earthobservations.org/index.html for more info on GEO.

Allan

--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo Journal Now Available

2007-05-15 Thread Allan Doyle
Thanks Tyler - this is fantastic! I'm learning a lot already, reading  
through it.


It would be good to clarify the copyright on the journal. Right now,  
on page 70, it says all articles are copyrighted by the respective  
authors, and that's probably as it should be. But it's unclear how  
anyone could reproduce copies of the journal.


For instance, is it ok to post a copy on another web site? Is it ok  
to print 5 copies for a small office? Could the UN print and mail  
copies to a number of field offices? Can copies be distributed on a  
CD? etc. etc.


I think this could be solved with a CC-Attribution-NoDerivs or maybe  
the non-commercial version of that license that covers the entire  
journal issue. (I can't look up the real CC license version, their  
site seems to be suffering some malady right now).


Then people could print entire copies but would have to get  
permission from the authors to make copies of individual articles.


Allan

On May 15, 2007, at 10:54, Tyler Mitchell wrote:


It is my pleasure to announce that Volume 1 of the OSGeo Journal is
now available for your reading pleasure!

http://www.osgeo.org/journal/volume1

This is the first volume of the new Journal and includes many
interesting articles, news and updates from our open source
communities.

We already have some content ready for Volume 2 and have learned many
lessons along the way that will help the next volume be even better.

A big thanks to the editorial team for their hard work in pulling it
all together and to all the great contributions we received from
writers, developers, users and project teams.  I'm excited to see that
we can promote projects, educate readers and provide news/info all in
our own professional publication.

I hope you enjoy it!

Sincerely,
Tyler

p.s. Please note that the Journal has an official ISSN number
(1994-1897) that you can cite in your formal bibliographic references.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Liability protection project - call for participants

2007-05-15 Thread Allan Doyle
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, it's a topic that has  
renewed relevance.


From the sound of it, OSGeo itself has too many eggs in its basket  
to risk having them broken by providing a shield. But that ought not  
stop geo-foss developers from either joining up with Bruce's idea or  
from setting up a geo-clone of that idea.


Ideally, the legal issues would only have to be worked out once, and  
everyone who wanted could join the shield. There's nothing  
inherently different about geo in this case, is there?


Allan

On May 14, 2007, at 23:32, Frank Warmerdam wrote:



Folks,

Bruce Perens is a luminary in the open source world, and known as a
founder of the Debian project, and author of the Free Software
Definition - a foundational document for the concept of OSI approved
open source licenses.

Bruce Perens wrote:
 A long time ago we planned for SPI to protect Debian developers from
 liability connected with their development of Free Software. That  
never

 came to fruition. With the sword-rattling going on by various patent
 holders, it's  a goal even more worth carrying out today.

 Some of us have homes, and other property that we would rather  
not place
 at risk of any lawsuit connected with our Free Software  
activities. The
 way to do that is to act as a volunteer on the behalf of a non- 
profit

 corporation, with the corporation assuming your liability. It is
 possible to insure you against those risks, but it's much more  
expensive
 - potentially 1.5 to 2.5 percent of your net worth per year per  
member.

 It's better to put the risk in the lap of an entity that doesn't own
 anything. We can potentially do it at zero cost to the member  
that way.


 There is a downside. If you work on behalf of such an entity, you  
would
 have to agree to act at their direction, which means acting  
responsbily
 on their behalf, by not doing stupid stuff that obviously  
increases the
 corporation's risk of being sued. This doesn't really have to do  
with
 practical software, but with what some consider freedom-of-speech  
issues
 like obscentity or hate speech. For that reason, this would be  
strictly
 opt-in. It would not be directly associated with SPI or Debian,  
because
 we could never get all of the DDs to agree about this, and  
because SPI
 owns property that we do not want to expose to liability.  
Copyrights of

 software produced would be assigned to a non-profit like FSF or SPI*

 I am asking for current free software authors in the United  
States who
 would be interested in being protected from liability, and would  
join me
 in a request to the Software Freedom Law Center to assist us by  
creating

 such an entity. If you would like to do that, please reply to me at
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Further discussion will be carried out separately
 from SPI and Debian lists.

Thanks

Bruce

 * There should also be limits on how much software a single non- 
profit

 has in its risk pool, this is a good question for SFLC.

At the time it was founded, OSGeo also had a goal to provide legal
resources, and perhaps assume legal liability for developers of OSGeo
project.  This is not a role that OSGeo has worked to address since
founding, and it is unclear how much liability it would be willing to
assume.

I've asked Bruce for more information on his efforts, either with an
eye towards OSGeo fulfilling this role of legal liability shield for
developers, or possibly with the idea of addressing this via some
separate entity such as the one he envisages establishing.

I'm interested in others thoughts on the importance of the role of
legal liability shield.  Such thoughts would be well expressed
here on OSGeo discuss.

Bruce is also interested in other open source software developers
expressing interest in his effort to help justify forming a  
corporation.

You can contact him as noted above.

Best regards,
--
--- 
+--
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush| President OSGeo, http:// 
osgeo.org


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free

2007-03-05 Thread Allan Doyle


On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:26, Frank Warmerdam wrote:


ross s wrote:
Just to add a bit more spice to the discussion.  I think the root  
problem here is a definition amoung open source purists.  Jeff  
Thurston has added some interesting points to his blog (below).

---
So? is your ?free? more pure than my ?free?? Is there a ?free-o- 
meter? or something about?


Folks,

Yes, there is a free-o-meter.  If the licensing of software  
meetings the
requirements of the open source definition then the software is  
free (in

the open source sense).  Otherwise it is just not.

I have no problem with workshops about mixing free (aka open  
source) and
proprietary software.  Lots and lots of foss software works with  
Oracle, so

show that link in action!  But I don't feel the conference should have
substantial content that is strictly proprietary without so much as an
open source fig-leaf.

The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just demonstrates  
the

need for additional outreach by OSGeo.


+1

See also: http://zcologia.com/news/390/deliberately-obtuse/

Free-o-meter: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html


--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free

2007-03-05 Thread Allan Doyle

On Mar 5, 2007, at 14:27, Paul Ramsey wrote:
Au contraire, you'll find the GPL and LGPL duly listed as OSI- 
approved licenses here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/


While the free folks might not like the flexibility displayed by  
the open source movement, they can be fully subsumed from a  
licensing point-of-view, if not an advocacy point-of-view.



On Mar 5, 2007, at 14:33, Ned Horning wrote:



The FSF can't exist under the Open Source umbrella because they
feel some Open Source does not guarantee Freedom over time. The Open
Source people can't exist under the Free umbrella because they feel
the GPL and its variants are too restrictive.


Okay, this is the part I don't get. What part of the FSF can't be  
included

as open source? To me this sounds like a square saying it can't be a
rectangle since all of its side have the same length.

I think of open source as embracing a broad spectrum of licenses  
including
all of those supported by the FSF. Should I not be looking at this  
from a

licensing perspective?


I stand corrected by Paul from a license point of view. But I believe  
that licenses such as the MIT license http://opensource.org/licenses/ 
mit-license.php which are non-viral in that they do not require  
that derived works themselves be open source are philosophically at  
odds with the Free Software Foundation's ideals.


Thus to me Free is not a subset of Open Source because the latter  
does not guarantee Freedom in perpetuity. That is what makes people  
think of FSF as a bunch of radical communists, but I think they are  
pretty staunch defenders of a freedom that we would be loathe to lose.


Allan

--
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss